Romney and Obama debate reminds me of something

Well, one presidential debate is in the books, and the consensus is near-unanimous: The challenger took down the champ.

In fact, a CNN piece said the president “appeared tired and sometimes confused,” whereas the challenger was by far the “more effective speaker.”

Harsh words indeed, and taken at face value, it would seem the president would be hurt to the point that his re-election — a near foregone conclusion in the weeks leading up to the debate — would be at risk.

Yep. Take the above at face value, and it would appear the President is in some trouble.

But ...I’ve gone and pulled a fast one on you, as the above quotes from the CNN piece aren’t about President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s first debate. They’re from a summary of the first Ronald Reagan-Walter Mondale debate of 1984. Mondale trounced Reagan in that debate, and for a moment there, it looked like he was going to make a serious push to assume control of the free world.

Mondale lost the electoral vote 525-13.

Now I’m not saying we’re witnessing the beginning of a history repeat, as the only chance Obama has of winning 525-13 would be for Romney to A) leave his wife in the next two weeks, B) marry a random Kardashian, and then C) strangle a cat for a good measure. But it’s worth it to stop for a moment and realize Romney winning a single debate does not automatically mean this race has all of a sudden become a race, as just about every other breathless media type is currently doing. (Yep, I’m back on the “Romney won’t win” thing again.)

Listen — I want what’s best for this country, and I’m more or less convinced neither candidate has the chops to lead us back to the good ‘ol days. (Remember the good ‘ol days, back when if you didn’t like your job, you’d just quit and get another one? Remember those days?)

Please keep in mind I am not attacking this at a partisan level, just attacking it at a mathematical level. And the math tells me — short of a major, Kardashian-caused shift — President Barack Obama will win re-election come November.

Look at any electoral map projection, and it’s clear Obama has a much easier path than Romney. And this isn’t even a Romney problem, necessarily. In George W. Bush’s two victories, he barely won with 271 electoral votes in 2000 and 286 in 2004. In fact, you have to go back to Bush Sr. to find a GOP candidate who dominated. (To compare, Obama hit 365 in 2008, and Clinton 370 and 379 in 1992 and 1996.) For better or worse — and really, who knows — the electoral map, for the last 25 years, has become the Democrats to lose.

So Romney had this problem going in, and he’s having this problem going out, no matter how strong he was in Obama-Romney 1.

That said, we’ve got two debates to go and 32 days until election day. Can Romney use his debate bounce to catapult himself past Obama and take the White House? Well, of course he can. It’s just very unlikely. Not as unlikely as a Mondale 2016 run, but unlikely nonetheless. The electoral map doesn’t lie.